One Child: Do We Have a Right to More?

by Sarah Conly

A compelling argument for the morality of limitations on procreation in lessening the harmful environmental effects of unchecked population
We live in a world where a burgeoning global population has started to have a major and destructive environmental impact. The results, including climate change and the struggle for limited resources, appear to be inevitable aspects of a difficult future. Mandatory population control might be a possible last resort to combat this problem, but is also a potentially immoral and undesirable violation of human rights. Since so many view procreation as an essential component of the right to personal happiness and autonomy, the dominant view remains that the government does not have the right to impose these restrictions on its own citizens, for the sake of future people who have yet to exist.
Sarah Conly is first to make the contentious argument that not only is it wrong to have more than one child in the face of such concerns, we do not even retain the right to do so. In One Child, Conly argues that autonomy and personal rights are not unlimited, especially if one's body may cause harm to anyone, and that the government has a moral obligation to protect both current and future citizens. Conly gives readers a thought-provoking and accessible exposure to the problem of population growth and develops a credible view of what our moral obligations really are, to generations present and future.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

260 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2015

Reviews

[Chantal Lyons · Rating 4 out of 5]

A word of caution for those interested in reading about arguments for population control: this book presents a philosopher's case for it, rather than a detailed exploration of practicalities and policy mechanisms.

Conly is to be commended for this book - unusual to academia, it's in plain language, and concepts are plainly explained. It's not overly-long either, the chapters all a digestible length. My copy is now very dog-eared, as there's plenty of powerful points inside that I wish to remember for future debates. Conly's examination of what a one-child policy could do for female empowerment is a particular highlight.

Why four stars instead of five? Unfortunately, even though Conly emphasises at the start of the book that her argument is a philosophical and thus abstract one, it's difficult - perhaps even impossible - to consider something like population control in separation to reality. Her central point - that any harms of a one-child policy now will pale in comparison to the harms of an overpopulated world in the future - is valid, and though she does acknowledge that some people would still break a one-child law, she doesn't address the complicated implications of a one-child policy (outside of China) that I think are essential to address in any discussion about forcing people to stop at one child. Most crucially, what of accidental pregnancies and births, for parents and for the children? Or an immigrant family who already have several children? Or a parent who divorces and then marries someone who doesn't yet have a child?

All that said, if the threat of overpopulation to people and planet concerns or terrifies you, this is a useful read to have in the armoury.

[Paul H. · Rating 1 out of 5]

If I still taught philosophy to undergraduates I would literally use this book as an example of how not to write/argue.

[Fons Jena · Rating 4 out of 5]

My review is an e-mail I wrote to the author:

Dear Ms. Conly,

I write you this e-mail to let you know that I read your book ‘One Child’ with much interest. Overpopulation activists like me can add a very good book to their repertoire of tools they use to convince people about overpopulation. It is written in a very accessible language and the message is very clear and firmly supported by sound philosophical reasoning. Also very welcoming is the fact that the author is a women, something that only reinforces the message.

As a philosophy student myself I admire your approach. It is a very sensitive subject yet you have succeeded in telling the facts with minimal ‘collateral damage’ to people who may find this inquiry inappropriate. But as a philosopher I must remain critical and continue my search for the facts without worrying about any existing dogma or accepted assumptions.

I’m not the ‘mainstream’ population activist as I not only have interests in protecting natural biodiversity but also because I’m worried about the loss of cultural and ethnic diversity. I try to combine the subject of overpopulation with the equally sensitive subject of human diversity since both are closely linked. As an advocate of ‘universal diversity’ I would like to elaborate on your position concerning cultural survival. Please allow me to explain.

In your chapter ‘Cultural Survival’ you rightly make a difference between the racist and non-racist argumentation. The people who are worried about the survival of their ‘kind’ because they believe that they are ‘superior’ and thus have more rights than others, are indeed racists. This line of reasoning is, like you say, false and harmful. But when you talk about the ‘not so despicable’ concern of mere ‘cultural survival’ I have the impression that you undervalue the essence of culture, ethnicity and diversity. You seem to entertain the idea that any individual is an empty bottle that can be filled with any ‘culture’; as long as the bottle remains filled there is no problem.

My point is that diversity within the human species is not only a cultural issue, but also an ethnic one. If all European colonists would have made Native American culture their own before they massacred them, this would still be a tragic loss of diversity although their culture would have ‘survived’. Or – more realistic – if current European populations would be replaced by a pan-European type (let alone one of another continent) there would still be a huge loss of diversity even if this replacement would be completely ‘integrated’. In these examples the bottles remain filled with the original ‘cultural fluid’ but the bottles changed.

We make this objection within the animal and plant kingdom but we fail to bring it up within our own species. The Canadian goose and the American cherry tree are a threat to European goose and cherry tree populations and therefore we take measures so that both variants remain in existence, side by side. In other words: we care about ecological diversity so much that we go to great length to maintain it. Yet we massacre ethnicities and cultures like there is no tomorrow and refuse to take any measures.

Since this ‘diversity paradox’ is omnipresent in our society (I assume in American society too) I have decided to put it on paper, see attached document. If you find the time to read it I trust you will understand what I am trying to say, and this without writing me off as a ‘racist’. If it is written as clearly as your book you will understand.

My best regards,
Fons Jena

[Lucky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Both the most pressing and the most controversial environmental problem today examined by a courageous philosopher, Sarah Conly.

[Shelly Dee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conly defends the seemingly indefensible position that coercive, government paternalism is justified in the case of reproduction. She claims that because we (each set of two human individuals) have no right to more than one child (a shared child between the two), there is no rights violation to coercively enforce a one-child rule.

This book is strange in a number of ways, but fitting with Conly's general claims that autonomy is not as wide or deep as we believe, and paternalism isn't necessarily the harbinger of an anti-liberal political authority. The book is, though, worth a read if you are interested in global governance, population ethics, reproductive rights, or environmental ethics.

[Mills College Library]

304.63 C75222 2016

[Noushin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Agree with most of the reasoning.

You may feel that hav­ing chil­dren is es­sen­tial to pro­vid­ing your life with mean­ing and hap­pi­ness. But you’re not nec­es­sar­ily en­ti­tled to have more than one child. Since many peo­ple live happy lives with­out chil­dren, this right is not as vital as the right to food, clean water or so­cial in­ter­ac­tion.
Hav­ing one child sat­is­fies the need to have some­thing of your­self live on after you, or to have the next gen­er­a­tion carry your genes. The right to a child doesn’t guar­an­tee the right to sev­eral chil­dren for the sake of in­sur­ance. One child meets the basic need, as rice rather than caviar sat­is­fies the right to food.
Even though hav­ing chil­dren is costly, dif­fi­cult and stress­ful, most peo­ple vow that it makes their lives fuller and richer. But hav­ing more than one child does not mean your hap­pi­ness will in­crease with an ad­di­tional child.
Re­pro­duc­tive rights fall under the head­ing of bod­ily con­trol. The ar­gu­ments for your sole con­trol of your body are that it be­longs to you and sus­tains your au­ton­omy, and that pro­hibit­ing au­ton­omy lim­its equal­ity. None of these ar­gu­ments sup­ports the need to have more than one child.
You can’t force some­one to help an­other per­son, even some­one in need, but you can pre­vent peo­ple from hurt­ing oth­ers. You don’t have to open your house to a home­less per­son, but you can’t dis­pose of toxic waste in your yard if it threat­ens your neigh­bors’ health.